A formal organization of U.S. Marines circulating an email
that implied (even as a joke) the use of violence as a way of accomplishing a political
goal against a member of Congress would be dealt with in very severe ways by
the officers and politicians in charge of the U.S. armed forces. Civilian
authority over this group of government employees is considered nearly absolute
in the American tradition. Yet, consider a recent
scandal involving John Barnes, the president of the Warren Police Officer’s
Association, who is in hot water over an email he sent out supporting a recall
effort targeting Michigan State Rep. Jeff Farrington,
R-Utica. The MIRS Capitol Capsule
newsletter, a subscription news service for primarily Lansing insiders, reports
that the email said the following:

Michigan State Rep. Jeff Farrington, R-Utica

"We intend to walk into
Lansing after the summer break and ask the Republicans who have been so eagerly
screwing us, 'who's next?' If we cannot earn their respect we will do what we
have always done; hit it with a flashlight until we gain compliance."

When asked about his choice of words, Barnes told MIRS that
he was sorry for any offense taken, and that the language was just an example
of “cop speak” that was not meant for the general public. He then further qualified
his apology:

"I will refrain from using
inflammatory language as soon as those attacking me and my fellow police
officers refrain from using the same."

The police union boss’ frank chatter demonstrates the inherent
threat to the health of representative government that ensues when taxpayers
grant collective bargaining rights to government employee unions. At a minimum,
this irresponsible so-called “cop speak” from a high-ranking official in the
union could be a damning bit of evidence the next time a Warren cop faces a
police brutality charge.

StayEngaged

Receive our weekly emails!

email address

But at a deeper level, it raises serious ethical and
existential questions about whether taxpayers should allow any public servant to serve more than one master while on the job.
Armed with public dollars, deadly weapons, and a monopoly on the legal use of
force, should police officers be allowed to collectively recognize loyalty to a
leadership other than the rule of law and the community that pays their
salaries?

Lifting the question up a notch on the public security
ladder, it is a settled question that it would be dangerous to allow the U.S.
military to be unionized. So serious and ingrained is the professionalization
of the American military that it is almost totally unacceptable for them to
collectively participate in any form of domestic political activity. Obviously,
as individuals, they retain the right to vote and speak their mind outside the
job. But unlike some less fortunate nations, there are not and never have been
organized political movements within the U.S. military. Active duty generals do
not run for public office with the assistance of the troops under their
command; and soldiers do not organize to influence the composition of the
Congress that sets their pay, nor the occupant of the White House who can send
them into harm’s way.

And for good reason: If the people with the biggest
government-issued guns ever get in the habit of influencing who their Commander
in Chief should be, then the master/servant relationship between free Americans
and their government will begin to slip dramatically, with a military
dictatorship at the very end of the slide.

Yet if the very justification for a government union is to
improve the working conditions of the public employee, then who could be in
greater need of protection than a government employee whose job classification
allows for them to be deliberately ordered into actions that are likely to cause death and dismemberment?

Apologists for police unions will argue that their role is essential
because of the uniquely dangerous work that cops do. But this reasoning
explodes when applied to what can often be more dangerous military work. Imagine:
“Sorry, Mr. President, but the Army can’t help out with Omaha Beach. Our union president says that’s an OSHA
violation …”

The most potent and professional armed forces on Earth are
staffed with a steady stream of qualified volunteers signing up for the job
despite not a historical whiff of being able to count on unions or political
influence to protect them. And unlike police officers or any other civilian, a
solider isn’t usually free to quit the job and work somewhere else the next
day.

What of other public employees?

Where soldiers are charged with defending civil society, the
role of public education is supposed to be to protect the future of it. If
those holding democracy’s guns shouldn’t be dividing their loyalty between the
public good and their union bosses, then what of those holding democracy’s
school children?

If an email from the police union boss boasting of
flashlight beatings against politicians who don’t comply with the union’s
wishes raises questions about the risk of government recognition for cop
unions, then consider an email sent back in
March from Iris Salters, the union boss in charge of the Michigan Education
Association. It asked the vast majority of the state’s public school teachers
to vote on the following question:

“Do you give MEA the authority to initiate crisis activities up to and
including job action?”

Elaborating
further, it said:

“Let me be clear on what this vote means. It authorizes MEA to engage in
significant activities — up to and including a work stoppage — that will
increase the pressure on our legislators.”

Teacher strikes are illegal in Michigan. Ms. Salters evaded
questions regarding whether she was asking for permission to initiate a “crisis”
that included breaking the law, saying it would be up to her membership to
decide. What is not in question is that the union boss was willing to have her
members engage in “significant activities” that would deliberately impede
delivery of the very public service that they are paid to provide.

No such restriction operates on a public sector union.
Whether it is cops and the use of force or teachers and the education of school
kids, the jobs are in government-granted monopolies, backed up with financing
that comes from mandatory taxation. The ‘customers’ – the taxpayers – have no
alternatives. When government unions use their monopoly position to threaten
politicians, they are collectively taking action against the very public that
is forced to pay their wages.

Despite the important work done by our soldiers, sailors,
airmen and marines, it is clear why government should never grant collective
bargaining power to a labor union or any other political authority structure in
the military that could compete for the loyalty of the public servants who
defend the nation. Likewise, given the critical nature of their jobs and the
large sums of tax dollars expended on them, why shouldn’t the same standard
apply to teachers and cops?

The Republican Party fully controls most states and at the national level has captured the House, Senate and presidency. By many measures, the party has more power than it has had in many decades. But will that control last? And, more importantly, what policy priorities are coming about from these political victories?

RelatedSites

Would you like to see more information like this? Learn how you can help the Mackinac Center provide incisive, accurate and timely analysis of critical policy issues.